Tzvi Yechezkieli, the Arab affairs expert of Channel 10, said that many Arab commentators supported the content of Netanyahu’s speech. He cited a commentator on Al-Arabiya TV, who had said that he could have written a large part of the speech.

Yechezkieli said that the Arab countries are convinced that Obama will not safeguard their security interests in the current negotiations with Iran and will not protect them against Iranian aggression.

The above is not isolated opinion, either. There was this on Bibi’s speech at AIPAC:

Yesterday, Faisal J. Abbas, the powerful Editor-in-Chief of Al Arabiya English, published an editorial under the headline: “President Obama, listen to Netanyahu on Iran.” Abbas’ editorial was a reaction to Netanyahu’s speech to AIPAC yesterday.

He wrote: “In just a few words, Mr. Netanyahu managed to accurately summarize a clear and present danger, not just to Israel (which obviously is his concern), but to other U.S. allies in the region.”

The Saudi Daily Al-Jazirah published an article written by Dr. Ahmad Al-Faraj, who supported Netanyahu’s decision to speak to the U.S. Congress against the upcoming deal with Iran. He called Obama “one of the worst American presidents” and said that Netanyahu’s campaign against the deal is justified because it also serves the interests of the Gulf States.

Barack Obama and his fellow travelers seem to be the only ones, aside from Iran, that were critical of the Prime Minister’s address.

The Bethlehem-based news agency Ma’an has cited a Kuwaiti newspaper report Saturday, that US President Barack Obama thwarted an Israeli military attack against Iran’s nuclear facilities in 2014 by threatening to shoot down Israeli jets before they could reach their targets in Iran.

Israel is far from a perfect ally, and they can be a thorn in the side of America even at the best of times. But they are the only western-style free democracy in the Middle East. They are also a valuable friend. Conversely, Iran is an oppressive theocracy that has promised the destruction not only of Israel but of the United States, as well. They are a destabilizing force in a strategic region, hostile to American interests and to those of our allies.

That Obama chose to heed the advice of the National Security Advisor of a pathetic weakling of a President speaks volumes (though Obama makes Jimmy Carter look like Bismarck). That he chose to make such a strong threat against an ally rather than our myriad Islamic fundamentalist enemies is positively thunderous. Obama hates American power and influence, just as he does that of Israel and the UK. He is an Islamist sympathizer and a statist communist, just as Rudy Giuliani had the courage to say publicly. Obama is positively hot for a deal with Iran that would cede to them the ability to develop nuclear weapons, which they have promised to use against Israel.

The notion that the US would threaten an ally who wanted to strike Iran would seem preposterous under any other President. I don’t know if it is true now, either, but such a thing is much more plausible with an anti-American, anti-Western communist in the White House.

What would have been the effect if Ronald Reagan had made a similar threat and stifled the Osirak strike? Or George W. Bush had threatened Israel into canceling the attack on Syria’s nuclear facility in 2007?

There are 600+ days left of this malignant cabal of anti-American ultra-liberals in the Executive Branch. One hopes there remains something resembling the United States of America on Inauguration Day, 2017. And that our credibility and relationships with our allies around the world have not been irreparably damaged. On Tuesday I will listen to Benjamin Netanyahu carefully. I hope others do, too.

Senior State Department official Daniel Rosen was arrested for allegedly soliciting a juvenile Tuesday afternoon, a Fairfax County Sheriff’s Office spokeswoman told TheBlaze.

Rosen, the State Department’s director of counter-terrorism, was arrested at his home for the “use of a communication device to solicit a juvenile,” sheriff’s spokeswoman Lucy Caldwell said.

The (LinkedIn) page says he “oversees $300 million per year in CT programs related to Countering Violent Extremism, Anti-terrorism Assistance, Counter-terrorism Financing, Counter-terrorism Engagement and Regional Initiatives. Manages the Office of Plans and Policy including oversight of 20+ personnel.”

He also “represents the Office of the Coordinator and the US Department of State in interagency and international meetings, conferences, congressional briefings, and other fora.”

“If [Daniel Rosen’s story] disappears, you know that we are living in a government that is run just like the German government was run in the 1930s, one with the worst kinds of people.”

Beck said the nation is in “dire, dire trouble” if the repeated claims that senior State Department officials are soliciting sex with minors are ignored.

But don’t worry, now that the government is running the internet, the story of a senior State Department official responsible for counter-terrorism in the Obama Administration soliciting children for sex suddenly disappearing from major online content is much more easily explained. Just ask Lois Lerner.

It is the question Joshua asked before the walls of Jericho. Asked today of the President of the United States, a truthful answer augurs terribly for the People of Israel. And for America.

This President is willing to have his State Department meet with members of the Muslim Brotherhood. For the uninitiated, the Muslim Brotherhood is the spiritual inspiration for Al Qaeda, and for ISIS, and are open supporters of Hamas and Hezbollah. In the 1940s they were an eager ally of Hitler’s Third Reich. The Muslim Brotherhood enthusiastically supported the Final Solution, the Holocaust against Europe’s Jews, and still do, never having renounced that position. But into Foggy Bottom they go. Imagine if, with American servicemen fighting against the Third Reich, the Department of State would have been hosting Primo de Rivera or Francisco Franco from among Spain’s fascists, or Leon Dagrelle from the Rexists, both highly sympathetic to Hitler and the Nazis.

This is the same State Department that, with the blessing of the President, sent operatives into Israel to help tip the election against the Prime Minister of an ally nation. An Administration who took to the pages of the New York Times to threaten that ally with “consequences” should they decide to democratically re-elect Benjamin Netanyahu as their Prime Minister.

The President is desperate for a deal with Iran regarding their development of nuclear weapons, undoing decades of precisely the opposite policy against the advice of virtually every one of America’s allies in the region. The President believes we should trust Iran, an Iran whose supreme leader has vowed very recently the destruction of both America and Israel, and an Iran that has already begun testing nuclear detonators.

The President refuses abjectly to even give name to this enemy who slaughters Christians and Jews, and shrieks hatred for the infidel and vows punishment and destruction on the non-believers. The President declared long ago, in his autobiography, that he would “stand with the Muslims” should the political winds blow against them. Nobody specified if those winds carried the odor of the burning flesh of their victims. When those victims included cartoon illustrators in France, murdered in cold blood by Islamists angered at depictions of Muhammed, the President was very conspicuously absent from the world leaders who marched in Paris to show their support for France and condemn Islamic extremism. Instead, the President vowed to set aside the First Amendment to keep the press from running stories critical of the Islamists.

This Administration was complicit in the overthrow of the government of one American ally (Egypt) and another country whose dictator had long been cowed into behaving (Libya). Both countries saw the scourge of radical Islam cause uncounted pain and suffering. When the Egyptians had had enough of the bloodbaths of Morsi and the Muslim Brotherhood, and took to the streets by the millions to topple him, Obama turned his back on Egypt, complaining that the Al-Sisi regime that replaced Morsi was “not democratically elected”. No matter that Morsi’s first act was to abrogate Egypt’s treaty with Israel, and his next was to formalize the systematic slaughter of the Coptic Christians who had lived in Egypt for millenia. From the White House came not a word of rebuke for the Muslim Brotherhood or Morsi.

With the bloody two year-long rampage of Boko Haram in full swing, publicity as to the plight of the mostly-Christian victims of the Islamists there came only when the group kidnapped young girls. Then, and only then, was the First Lady moved to hold up a hashtag sign, which apparently takes the place of actually doing something.

Those who have sided with this President can spare me the outrage over the horrific death of the brave Jordanian pilot at the hands of ISIS. How many hundreds of Americans burned similarly on 9/11 at the hands of Islamic extremists? How many children lay screaming and bleeding for hours in Beslan? How many in the flames of the churches in Nigeria and Cairo?

If you are outraged over what you saw today, you should be. If it is the first time you are outraged, great shame on you. Had they the technical means, our enemy would engineer another holocaust, this time to the entire world, until every nation was destroyed or had submitted. The willful blindness of the American people aids in the success of this enemy. Those who labeled Chris Kyle a psychopath and a racist for calling these people barbaric savages, and who condemn him for killing them, need to go and smell the charred bodies of the victims of the Islamists. They also need to ask themselves why our President refuses to identify our sworn and active enemies by name. Why he has provided support and succor to that enemy. And why he has invited that enemy into our country, our cities and towns, and into the halls of power of the United States Government.

Though a truthful answer would never be forthcoming, the question Joshua asked at Jericho should be asked of our President.

Of all the events of the Twentieth Century, it is the First World War that has had the most dramatic and longest-lasting impact on the psyche of Western civilization, more so than all the events that followed. For anyone with an abiding interest in that war, the 1964 BBC documentary The Great War is an invaluable reference to understanding. Narrated by Sir Michael Redgrave, the 26-part documentary is a superbly-crafted work. The tenor of the broadcasts reflects the erosion of the naïve hopes of the warring parties in 1914 into the grim fatalism that the years of slaughter evoked, and the upheaval that would ultimately topple the crowned heads of Germany, Russia, Austria-Hungary, and Serbia. BBC producers make excellent use of voice to read the actual words of the key participants such as Edward Grey, Bethmann-Hollweg, Conrad von Hotzendorf, Joffre, Haig, Falkenhayn, and others. The series features remarkable and little-seen motion footage of the world of 1914-18, including the civilians, the politicians, the armies, and the great battles of that war. The battle footage heavily emphasizes the two great killers of that war (in inverse order), the machine gun, and modern breech-loading recoil-dampened artillery.

Of note also are the poignant, and sometimes extremely moving, interviews with the participants of events of the great tragedy. Some had been in the thick of the fighting, others young subalterns or staff officers at the sleeve of the decision-makers. Most remarkably, the BBC managed to produce a documentary about momentous events that changed the world and yet also managed to allow the viewer insight into the inestimable human tragedy that these events summoned. At the time of the release of The Great War, those events were closer in time to the audience than the beginning of the Vietnam War is to our contemporary world. The twenty-six episodes are around forty minutes each. Worth every second of the time spent.

Oh, and as the credits roll at the end of each episode, one can spot the name of a very young (19 years old) contributor named Max Hastings.

The officer drew his service weapon and pointed it at the head of the man on the ground. Neighbors were concerned enough to begin filming the debacle. Notice how the police officer told the witnesses he “didn’t need them there”, as if they haven’t a right to be. They were interfering not at all with the officer, but were calling the police themselves because of the erratic and dangerous conduct of the officer.

Ask yourselves if you would trust the judgment and temperament of such a police officer in a real crisis, and whether he is upholding the law or instead merely bullying using the power of his badge and gun. True, we don’t know the entire circumstance of the incident, but it seems extremely unlikely that the officer had reason to unholster.

I have had a police officer draw his weapon on me exactly once, on a routine traffic stop in LA in the late 80s. He held the pistol at the ready (I could see him in the side mirror), while the other officer wrote the ticket. (There is no “routine traffic stop” in LA.) Both officers were nice as you please, pleasant and respectful. A marked difference from the conduct of the policeman in the video. This Toledo police officer deserves to find himself being called “the defendant” by a judge.

In Vermont, this right-to-carry state, such a police officer may well end up looking into the muzzle of a pistol himself, and will have earned it. If he fears for his safety, he should become an accountant. He sure as hell shouldn’t be a cop.

But, of course,

The police department stands by Hart’s actions…

As usual, our esteemed host is correct. The militarization of our nation’s police forces is de facto the standing army the founding fathers warned us away from. There will be more of this, as less restraint is shown by police officers, and individual liberties are increasingly curtailed in the name of “safety” and “compliance”.

Our (erstwhile?) Israeli allies have to be thrilled with this. Drudge has a link to Power’s 2002 remarks (see above) regarding US “intervention” with Israel, presumably to halt what Power terms time and again in her remarks as “genocide”.

“She is a monster, too – that is off the record – she is stooping to anything,” Ms Power said, hastily trying to withdraw her remark.

Ms Power said of the Clinton campaign: “Here, it looks like desperation. I hope it looks like desperation there, too.

“You just look at her and think, ‘Ergh’. But if you are poor and she is telling you some story about how Obama is going to take your job away, maybe it will be more effective. The amount of deceit she has put forward is really unattractive.”

Power, married to Administration official and Socialist laywer Cass Sunstein, is yet another ill-qualified, America-hating, far-left activist whose version of reality will be sure to cause problems. She was a journalist, covering the Balkans in the 1990s, and her point of view is largely shaped by the micro and not the macro issues of statesmanship and international affairs. While Power has campaigned for US-led military intervention to prevent genocide, apparently the killing of nearly a million Iraqis by Saddam Hussein’s Nazi-inspired regime does not qualify, as she opposed the Iraq war. Nor, can I recall hearing in her “religious freedom” exhortations, a public peep about the massacre of Christians across the Middle East and Africa since the 2008 election of Barack Obama.

However, the appointment of “humanitarian” interventionist Samantha Powers, coupled with the Obama Administration’s assertion that international permission rather than that of Congress is the ticket to use of military force, creates potential for yet another interesting showdown between Obama and Congress regarding that pesky old Constitution. It also proves decisively that the Obama Administration has learned nary a thing from its consistent and disastrous appointment of ill-suited, inexperienced ideologues charged with execution of any kind of coherent foreign policy for America.

So says Mohammed Morsi, the Muslim Brotherhood’s candidate who is now the President-elect of Egypt. As if the so-called “Arab Spring” and the overthrow of Mubarak in Egypt was a cry for Islamic Fundamentalism rather than freedom.

But let us remember that the Muslim Brotherhood are still staunch Islamists, who once heartily supported National Socialism, the Final Solution in particular. Interesting that they have never moderated their views publicly. They have also broken most of the rules they agreed to follow when they entered the political process.

Now, we are told, we have the Army trying to keep this candidate in check:

The generals, who oversaw Mubarak’s departure, have repeatedly said, both to Egyptians and to their close U.S. ally, that they will return to barracks and hand over to civilian rule. But they present themselves as guardians of Egypt’s security and long-term interests and moved to block the Islamists from taking more than a share of power.

Sounding ever more familiar, isn’t it? Israel may already be seeing the shape of things to come. The Muslim Brotherhood was best positioned to both inflame the unrest and instability in Egypt, and to take advantage of that instability and power vacuum to seize power. They did so, rather predictably, amid the promises of tolerance and moderation that seldom last long. And now they seem to be revising the narrative to make those in Tahir Square who suffered at the hands of the Mubarak Regime, fallen heroes of the Islamist victory. We are left with a contest for power between the Army, the most powerful political institution, and the Party, the most powerful social institution.

Perhaps events will surprise us, and the Islamists didn’t hijack the “Arab Spring” into an orchestrated and successful effort on the part of Islamists to seize power across the Middle East. Just the same, though, how does one sing die Horst Wessel-Lied in Arabic?

I’m on the road, so I’ll be doing some “best of” posts. Right now, this is the most searched for post.

While most people in the Army spend just about all their time in a working uniform like the ACU, there are occasions when something a little more formal is needed.

Since the late 1950s the standard Army Service and Dress uniform for most soldiers has been the Army Green Uniform. Folks in the Army almost universally refer to it as “Class A’s”.

When the uniform jacket is removed, the Army Green Uniform can be worn as the Class B uniform, suitable for most office environment jobs. When I served as a recruiter, most days we wore the Class B.

No, that's not me...

The problem with the Army Green Uniform was simple. It was ugly as sin in church. There was an alternative, however, one with a great history dating back practically to the first days of the Army. The Dress Blue Uniform.

Female Officer and Male Enlisted Service Dress Blues

There’s a reason why the trousers are a different shade blue from the coat. Back in the days of the Old West, when cavalry troopers wore the blue uniform as there work clothes, they would routinely remove their coat, roll it up and carry it strapped to the back of the saddle. The trousers faded from the sunlight and wear and tear, but the coat didn’t. Hence the difference.

Service Dress Blues were always an optional item for enlisted personnel. You could buy them, but you didn’t have to. Since they cost a lot of money and there were relatively few occasions to wear them, most junior folks did without.

Back in 2005 or so, the Chief of Staff of the Army made the decision to do away with the Army Green Uniform and modify the Blue uniform to replace it.The new variations are shown below.

The Army Blue Uniform

Personally, I wish they had done this about 25 years ago. I always hated the Green Uniform, and as soon as I could, bought a set of Blues. And anytime I had a chance to wear them, I did. One fairly common occasion was the “Dining Out”. A Dining Out is when a unit, typically a battalion, has a formal banquet, with spouses and sweethearts invited*. This is a social occasion run on military lines- the colors are presented, the chaplain gives the invocation, there are a couple of (usually brief) speeches, and maybe some awards and recognitions. Then there is usually some dancing. The important thing is, your best girl gets a chance to put on her best dress and go out to be seen. Chicks dig that. Since a lot of guys didn’t own Dress Blues, they made do with the Army Green Uniform with a white shirt and a bow tie.

Your author, center, in Dress Blues, flanked by two friends in Class A's.

Incredibly, I managed to save this picture, but lost the picture of my date. You’ll have to take my word for it that she was stunning. Really. The two guys in the photo were great friends and fellow warriors, but neither was all that attractive….

*You could invite your spouse, or your sweetheart, but NOT your spouse and your sweetheart…

So Israel has announced a unilateral cease fire and pulled its troops out of Gaza. Some on the right are unhappy that Israel has ceased offensive actions so soon. But here’s the thing- they were rapidly reaching the point of diminishing returns. All military actions take place in a political sphere, both domestic and international.

Domestic Israeli politics supported the incursion as a means to curb Hamas rocket attacks on Israel, provided there were not a lot of casualties among the Israeli ground forces.

Internationally, there was generally support (or at least muted condemnation) for the same goal.

Israel could reasonably expect its operations in Gaza to attrit a portion of the Hamas leadership, locate and destroy stockpiles of rockets and the production centers for them, disrupt the smuggling tunnel network and punish Hamas enough to make them reconsider the efficacy of their rocket attacks.

What ground operations could not be expected to do was destroy Hamas as a political entity, nor cow the Palestinians in the Gaza Strip to the point where they sued for peace. And Israel has no desire at all to engage in long term occupation of Gaza. That would be costly in terms of money, leave Israeli troops vulnerable to attack by insurgent forces and undermine domestic political support and international forbearance of their actions.

As to the timing of the cease fire, there can be reasonable disagreement whether it came too soon, too late, or just right, but to argue that Israel could have continued to fight in Gaza without paying an undue penalty of some sort is niave.